Patriots, Their Actions & Decibels

[quote]hspder wrote:
You cannot ignore the fact that there was IN FACT, a net job loss, even if it was inevitable. Sticking your head in the sand won’t help, we need to address this problem, period.

[/quote]

Not exactly fact. With the addition of 146,000 jobs in January, President Bush had a net jobs increase of 119,000 during his first term. That, in spite of inheriting Clinton’s recession, and enduring a terrorist attack - all within the first 9 months in office.

Unemployment numbers during January were 5.2% - the lowest since 9/11/2001. I may be off on my numbers, as it’s been a few years since my last economics class, but isn’t 5% statistical full employment?

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Not exactly fact. With the addition of 146,000 jobs in January, President Bush had a net jobs increase of 119,000 during his first term. That, in spite of inheriting Clinton’s recession, and enduring a terrorist attack - all within the first 9 months in office. [/quote]

Sorry if I wasn’t clearer – I was specifically talking to the paper that BB quoted that did not address the NET job loss in 2001 and 2002, which was the first time in ages there was a job loss. Since the paper limited itself to the period before 2003, I was pointing out that it should have addressed the problem that existed then, rather than glazing over it.

But you are right – there are some good signs of improvement, mostly due to improvements in the economy: there are certain areas that are picking up (like Health Services).

Now, I vaguely remember a certain Republican in these forums saying that the US President doesn’t have really that much influence in the economy… so I assume you’re not implying it’s thanks to Bush that we had this recent improvment, are you?

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Unemployment numbers during January were 5.2% - the lowest since 9/11/2001. I may be off on my numbers, as it’s been a few years since my last economics class, but isn’t 5% statistical full employment? [/quote]

5% is statistical full employment – but only under a specific set of circumstances and assumptions – namely constant job churn – i.e. a majority of unemployment being short-term – and the existence of many people that are technically unemployed but are not really looking for a job that hard.

What makes the current situation unique – and hence, 5% not being something to rave about – is that the circumstances are different: there is a large number of people that have been unemployed for extended periods of time, and the people that are unemployed really, really need a job. Contrary to the times where 5% was really good, today in many regions of this country it’s impossible to sustain a family with only one income, so many women – who would not be that desperate to find a job in the past – are quite desperate to find something to allow them to balance the domestic budget.

And, before you say it, I’ll say it for you: yes, the unemployment situation here in the US is by leaps and bounds less economically serious than in Europe (and most of the World, for that matter); Europeans have been completely unable to curb the serious unemployment problem there. They’re just too stubborn to face the situation with an open mind and actually fix it. They’re stuck to their old ways and haven’t woken up and “smollen” [sic: it’s a pun on a German word] the kofie [sic: Dutch].

However, remember that in Europe they do have very large unemployment benefits, so socially the situation is not that bad. It’s actually worse in certain parts of the US that were especially hit by outsourcing – like the SF Bay Area – than in any part of Europe.

Just come one of these days to visit SF and Oakland, and I’ll be happy to give you a tour so you can see how bad things are these days. That is, if you promise you’ll give me $1 for each homeless person you see.

Then, we can fly over to Germany – any large city, like Frankfurt, Dusseldorf, Munich, Berlin… will do – and I’ll give you $100 back for each homeless person you find. That should about balance things out…

[quote]hspder wrote:
Now, I vaguely remember a certain Republican in these forums saying that the US President doesn’t have really that much influence in the economy… so I assume you’re not implying it’s thanks to Bush that we had this recent improvment, are you?[/quote]

Well, the argument can be made that the tax cuts had an impact on the movement in the economy - I don’t know who should get the credit for them. It was Bush’s idea, but the Republican-held congress passed them. I shouldn’t expect you to subscribe to thr trickle-down theory, should I?

As for the recession. The democrats (Clinton) took the credit for the economy when it was good, so I guess it would only be fair that they get the blame for it heading south. But honestly, I think Clinton had dick to do with the boom. I don’t think the economy really started taking off until about 1994. Does that year ring a bell?

But someone has to pay for double-digit unemployment not being a bad situation ‘socially’. Invariably it’s the employed who shoulder the bulk of that load.

I think California, being on the fringe-left politically (as compared to most of the red states), invites more unemployment because of their anti-business bias and creates a euro-like situation. But I could be wrong.

The Bay Area is the Homeless Capital of the World. Thanks to the crack team of the SF city gov’t - the homeless enjoy rockstar status. I’ll give you a dollar for every homeless person that hasn’t migrated there from other states - how about that?

[quote]Then, we can fly over to Germany – any large city, like Frankfurt, Dusseldorf, Munich, Berlin… will do – and I’ll give you $100 back for each homeless person you find. That should about balance things out…
[/quote]

We don’t have to go to Europe. C’mon over to Dallas, Houston, Austin, San Antone. I’d be willing to bet that there are as many homeless Texans the Bay Area as there are in the state of Texas total.

And I don’t think it’s because of outsourcing.

But I could be wrong.

The Barrister is predictably only defending the success of Made in China’s retail efforts. Why disregard the means? It’s time to come out of the business closet, Barrister: you’re an elitest, aren’t you? Careful now, it is becoming possible to equate you with, of course, elitest liberal media! Like tobacco, Made in China sucks up all them nutrients. You’ve got to re-fertilize the soil or move on! Are we nearing moving time?

So Made in China cornered the retail market by capitalizing on U.S. wage insufficiency, used that leverage to elbow manufacturers out of the country, depleting jobs successively, took products that costed, say, $2 to manufacture and ship and sold to Americans for $6.50, cried “low-margin” through the GOP muezzin & faithful, and prepared to behead the “Infidel” protectionists? The Wrap.

As far as it being “basic”, it’s not. Most of these manufacturers don’t have the flexibility or agility you are essentially assuming them to have to make it all OK.

Capitalizing on the myopia of “consumers” through transformation of a first-world country to a third-world country for personal gain? Good? Highly reminiscent of the paradise of the Caribbean islands transformed into slave-labor sugar plantations by absentee landlords.

Once again, Cashing in them Dream Chips, aye? A renewable process that could become a way of life. The Emperor is naked once again: don’t you just hate the insight of democrats?

Stores, stores, more stores. Stalinist collectivization. Zamyatin or Orwell would have been comfy in Bentonville.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
I think California, being on the fringe-left politically (as compared to most of the red states), invites more unemployment because of their anti-business bias and creates a euro-like situation. But I could be wrong.[/quote]

Fringe-left? Anti-business bias? Euro-like? Since when?

Now it’s all our fault? We brought this upon ourselves?

If California was remotely left, or had any anti-business bias, or was “euro-like”, Oracle could never had gotten away with the barbaric way they treated the thousands of Peoplesoft employees they laid off for no better reason than Larry Ellison’s personal vendetta.

In Europe there are actual laws against such barbarism. Assuming Oracle would have been allowed to buy Peoplesoft the way it did (it wouldn’t, in Europe), they would not be allowed to fire a single soul without a proper justification (incompetence, violence, lewd acts, etc.). And even if they were, for some reason, they would have to give a 2 month notice and fire people personally, rather than mail them a pink slip over the MLK weekend.

So don’t come here and blame the homeless surge in the Bay Area on California’s “anti-business” laws. It’s quite the contrary.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
We don’t have to go to Europe. C’mon over to Dallas, Houston, Austin, San Antone. I’d be willing to bet that there are as many homeless Texans the Bay Area as there are in the state of Texas total. [/quote]

Since Texas is such a social paradise, tell me: why does it have the lowest average Credit Rating in the country, while the leftist Blue States – and, in particular, the liberal paradises of Boston and SF – have the highest?

The only two possible explanations are:

a) Texans actually have low-paying jobs – or no jobs – as most formerly middle-class Americans do these days in any state (California included), but contrary to the “leftist people”, Texans try to live beyond their means rather than on the street (leeching the banks and credit companies to keep them off the street)

b) Texans simply don’t think that paying your bills is the right thing to do, so they don’t pay them, even though they could if they wanted

[quote]Limbic wrote:
So Made in China cornered the retail market by capitalizing on U.S. wage insufficiency, used that leverage to elbow manufacturers out of the country, depleting jobs successively, took products that costed, say, $2 to manufacture and ship and sold to Americans for $6.50, cried “low-margin” through the GOP muezzin & faithful, and prepared the behead the “Infidel” protectionists? The Wrap.[/quote]

You’re right – the pressure from the market for retailers to start importing cheaper products from Asia – rather than using homemade products – was there, and protectionism could have removed that pressure by taxing the heck out of Asian products and balancing out the cost that way.

You’ll actually get more agreement on that assessment from the Republicans like Pat Buchanan than from most Democrats, not only because Protectionism and Liberalism usually don’t go together, but also because the idol of all liberals – Bill Clinton – didn’t like protecionism, and in fact catalyzed the “Made in China” movement.

Was Bill an idiot? Maybe, but not because of this.

The first part of the problem – and BB’s point – is that protecionism goes both ways and US companies need non-US markets to grow in.

But the problem was also inside: the margins within US borders were just too low to keep companies afloat – something protecionism wouldn’t solve.

One can argue that US companies could have just increased the cost of the products (which would be possible without the pressure from Asia), but the elasticy of demand wouldn’t have allowed that: basically people would just stop consuming and the pressure for a company to come in and bring the prices and margins back down would be too great, so it would be an unstable balance.

You can argue then that we could simply have increased the salaries along with the prices, but that brings inflation without an increase in margins.

The only way to make protecionism a good choice would be with a brutal increase in productivity – that would, by itself, increase the margins without an increase in price or salaries, allowing US companies to survive. Problem is: that would increase unemployment!

So Bill chose to go for the Free Market aproach, which basically “solves” the issue by creating a Global, chaotic macro-economic environment rather than a Closed, controlled one. The good news and the bad news are both the same: Global Macroeconomy is essentially a non-science, and hence anything can happen; on one hand, it can essentially sustain itself much better than a closed system, due to much easier churn, Macroeconomic adjustments, and Economies of Scale, on the other, it’s very hard to predict how things will go long term, since you essentially move from a somewhat controlled and predictable system to a Chaotic one.

The only thing we can predict in any Chaotic System, is actually the worst news of all: they tend to balance themselves out. For example, the most well-known Chaotic system – Weather – is basically composed of thousands of events where all imbalances – like a tropical depression – work really hard to correct themselves – for example, with gale force winds and rain.

Why is that bad news? Because since the US is on top, balance can mean that the US will have to come down to meet the rest – with gale force winds.

So, if Protecionism is a non-option (unless you guys are all willing to have 15% unemployment and work 70 hours a week) and the Free Market is a Chaotic system that no-one knows what will ultimately force the US into, aren’t we basically screwed either way?

Not necessarily. A Global Free Market can work to our advantage.

The US still has a resonably well-trained workforce, and a lot of accumulated wealth and resources. The trick is essentially for the US to create the tropical storms, and then send them abroad: let the rest of the world endure the self-correction, not us.

How? Through a sustained, clear investment in Advanced Education, Research and Development: make this again the nation of invention and innovation. If we are always the first to create a new product, we’ll be able to keep the greatest part of the profits, even if it’s only through intellectual property of products ultimately made in China…

To put it simply: Get our workforce back to College with the Government’s financial support and teach them new tricks.

We cannot beat the Asians by working harder or cheaper than them – but we can beat them by being more creative and innovative; by creating the great breakthroughs of the 21st Century, and having the world pay us for them, independent of where they are actually manufactured.

That would make the Free Market work to our advantage… And be much better than protecionism.

[quote]Limbic wrote:
The Barrister is predictably only defending the success of Made in China’s retail efforts. Why disregard the means? It’s time to come out of the business closet, Barrister: you’re an elitest, aren’t you? Careful now, it is becoming possible to equate you with, of course, elitest liberal media! Like tobacco, Made in China sucks up all them nutrients. You’ve got to re-fertilize the soil or move on! Are we nearing moving time?[/quote]

This has got to be the first time in history someone has been called an elitist for defending Wal-Mart. Seriously, how did you type that with a straight face?

While this sounds like a great plot for a bad made-for-TV-movie or some leftist (or paleoconservative) sociological twaddle, it doesn’t hold water.

You’re generally talking about big companies competing with other big companies, even if there is a difference of scale between Wal-Mart and Rubbermaid. The producers can very well fend for themselves, provided there is not collusion among all the retailers.

Firstly, there are levels of competition. Producers can choose to compete on quality, design, and other factors – not just price. They do not have to deal with Wal Mart if they don’t wish to do so – they can sell at Target, or Home Depot, or Macy’s – hell, they can even do QVC and Amazon – depending on how they wish to brand their items – or they can establish separate brands to target different market segments.

Secondly, no one is forcing anyone to move to China. Even the script of that silly PBS show only said something to the effect that Wal Mart suggested they move to China. If they wanted to move to an Indian reservation, or to the middle of Nebraska, or to Mexico, or whatever, they could have done so. Or they could have just decided to sell exclusively to Target while taking out an ad campaign touting “Made in America” and publicizing the decision to pull away from Wal Mart and the reason why.

So if a manufacturer chooses to compete on volume and low-margin, and wants to deal with Wal Mart, and then wants to complain when, after having made those choices, Wal Mart wants negotiate with them from whatever position of strength they have in terms of getting the price they want, I don’t think that should be considered shocking. Or bad – other that perhaps a bad business decision by the manufacturer to become too dependent on one retail outlet.

Ah, but they do. Wal Mart does not control America. Wal Mart does not control retail. There are many other retailers out there. It’s a choice to deal with Wal Mart. It’s a choice to continue to deal with Wal Mart. Just because there are actual consequences to choices does not make it cease to be a choice.

Hmmm… The mypopia of “consumers” huh? 'Cause all those stupid people aren’t smart enough to know what’s best for them? Who was calling me elitist?

Anyhow, please refer to the articles I posted above. Overall, the U.S. economy benefits from outsourcing production of low-margin commoditized items.

“Consumers,” meaning those little people who decide how they want to spend the money they earn, benefit from cheaper items. The labor force benefits overall from having more resources devoted to areas in which the U.S. economy, with its highly educated labor force, is more competitive – it other words, it becomes more efficient and more productive overall.

Plus, we get jobs from insourcing. And please don’t give me the trope about all the new jobs being “burger flippers.” We get the types of jobs at which we are most competitive, and those are good jobs (of course, every time we open a new McDonald’s, there are new burger-flipping jobs too, but those aren’t insourced jobs).

Another benefit is growing the economies of our trading partners so they can better afford the high-level items that the U.S. economy is most competitive at producing.

It’s a growing pie, not an zero sum game (or an isolated Caribbean island with a one-item economy in the 17th century).

What insight?

Do you realize how far over the map you have traveled, from elitist to Islamist to Stalinist to empire – all in one post? Do you really wonder why some find your posts incoherent?

[quote]hspder wrote:

Since Texas is such a social paradise, tell me: why does it have the lowest average Credit Rating in the country, while the leftist Blue States – and, in particular, the liberal paradises of Boston and SF – have the highest?

The only two possible explanations are:

a) Texans actually have low-paying jobs – or no jobs – as most formerly middle-class Americans do these days in any state (California included), but contrary to the “leftist people”, Texans try to live beyond their means rather than on the street (leeching the banks and credit companies to keep them off the street)

b) Texans simply don’t think that paying your bills is the right thing to do, so they don’t pay them, even though they could if they wanted

[/quote]

c) Shit loads of immigrants working really low paying agricultural jobs, very often with stolen social security numbers.

[quote]doogie wrote:
c) Shit loads of immigrants working really low paying agricultural jobs, very often with stolen social security numbers.[/quote]

If the illegal immigrants have stolen security numbers do you mean they steal the identity of a citizen? If so, why doesn’t the citizen complain? Last time I look at the stats, Texas actually has one of the lowest number of indentity theft cases…

And before you mention SS#s of dead people, credit bureaus don’t fall for that anymore, so those will not make the average credit score plunge…

Finally, who do you blame for the fact that there are “Shit loads of immigrants working really low paying agricultural jobs, very often with stolen social security numbers.” in Texas? The Leftist Liberals of the Bay Area? :slight_smile: Or the Feds or even the State, who don’t properly enforce the law?

[quote]hspder wrote:

If the illegal immigrants have stolen security numbers do you mean they steal the identity of a citizen? If so, why doesn’t the citizen complain? Last time I look at the stats, Texas actually has one of the lowest number of indentity theft cases…
[/quote]

How cute. Complain. That will fix it.
And Texas ranks third in number of victims per 100,000 residents behind other border states California, and Arizona.

[quote]
Finally, who do you blame for the fact that there are “Shit loads of immigrants working really low paying agricultural jobs, very often with stolen social security numbers.” in Texas? The Leftist Liberals of the Bay Area? :slight_smile: Or the Feds or even the State, who don’t properly enforce the law?[/quote]

I blame liberals who won’t require people on welfare to work for their keep.

Just shittin’ you there. I don’t even think illegal immigrants are a huge problem as long as they are hunched over in the fields. I don’t want to pay $5/pound for onions.

[quote]doogie wrote:
How cute. Complain. That will fix it.
And Texas ranks third in number of victims per 100,000 residents behind other border states California, and Arizona.[/quote]

Interesting – but still, California has a much higher average Credit Score, even though it also has a higher incidence of identity theft. How do you explain that?

[quote]hspder wrote:
Fringe-left? Anti-business bias? Euro-like? Since when?
If California was remotely left, or had any anti-business bias, or was “euro-like”, Oracle could never had gotten away with the barbaric way they treated the thousands of Peoplesoft employees they laid off for no better reason than Larry Ellison’s personal vendetta. [/quote]

I believe my exact wording was fringe left - as COMPARED TO the red states. You have Medi-Cal. You have mandatory employer-paid health insurance. You have huge union membership. Businesses are leaving Ca. in droves. It is not a business friendly state by any stretch of the imagination. Which is quite Euro-like - no efficiency. Government doling out punitive mandates on business owners, and the worker wielding all the power while taking none of the risk.

California Assembly: 48 Democrats. 32 Republicans.
California Senate: 25 Democrats. 15 Republicans.

That looks quite a bit left of center if you ask me.

Yep.

Employment-at-will. It’s not pretty, but it is the right of the employer to hire and fire at will. Unless there was discrimination involved. I have the right to the the same thing in my office. The thing that sticks in the craw of the anti-business left is, there’s really not much you can do about it. As evidenced by Ca.'s punitive treatment of business - a business can either shutdown, or move out of your state.

You must have mis-read, or misunderstood what I wrote. I’ll post it again so you can read it more carefully:

There was nothing mentioned about your anti-business laws wrt the homeless. The Bay Area’s homeless problem is self-inflicted. Paying the homeless. Requiring business owners to tolerate panhandlers, and vagrants clogging their storefronts, etc.

That is good question. I wondered that myself. Why does North Dakota(red) have the highest? Why is S. Dakota(red) 3rd?

Why do you rail on Texas’ credit rating when Cali’s is 40th?

If you look at bottom 10, all of the border states are there. including your beloved Cali.

[quote]The only two possible explanations are:

a) Texans actually have low-paying jobs – or no jobs – as most formerly middle-class Americans do these days in any state (California included), but contrary to the “leftist people”, Texans try to live beyond their means rather than on the street (leeching the banks and credit companies to keep them off the street)

b) Texans simply don’t think that paying your bills is the right thing to do, so they don’t pay them, even though they could if they wanted
[/quote]

I love the way you know all the possibilities - but I think you might have missed one.

My credit rating is abysmal. If I were to try and get a home loan, I would be laughed out of the loan officer’s cubicle. It’s not that I have bad credit. I have no real credit history except for a student loan. I pay cash for everything. My house is financed on a 10 year note by a local farmer who realized he could get a better interest rate from me than he could from a CD. My car is financed by the small local bank who doesn’t report to the credit bureaus. My building is financed at the same bank. I have no credit cards. I don’t deal with a big mega-bank, most of my finanial dealings fly under the radar of the all important credit rating.

Before you dismiss my situation as unique -

I have over 300 clients. 85% of them are farmers. Out of the 250 farmers that I deal with, there are maybe 5 or 6 that own a credit card. They own their house. They own their land. The loans they take out are through the FSA office, and they are usually about 2 years behind on them. But that’s not a function of the “only 2 possible explanations” - it’s drought, hail, rain, high fuel costs, low commodity prices, things like that.

I’m not about to speak for the rest of my great state, but from where I’m sitting there is more that “2 possibilities” for low credit scores.

What is California’s excuse?

[quote]hspder wrote:
If the illegal immigrants have stolen security numbers do you mean they steal the identity of a citizen? If so, why doesn’t the citizen complain? [/quote]

We have a database in my office of over 3000 workers and their SS#'s. In no less than 10 occurances are there at least 6 different names for a single number. I’ll help you with the math, and I’ll be conservative. There are at least 60 migrant workers floating around one of the smallest counties in Texas, sharing 10 Soc Sec numbers. It happens. I know, because I’ve seen it.

I have no idea who the numbers really belong to, but would it be a huge stretch to say that one migrant worker can get a number and share it among friends? Naw…those folks are as honest as the day is long, and pure as the driven snow.

For being a smart guy you know little, if anything, about migrants/illegals. They are under the radar. They don’t have bank accounts. They don’t buy houses. They don’t carry an AmEx card. They pay in cash. They sign no contracts. They don’t do anything but hoe cotton, pick onions, etc. They cash their checks at the farmer’s bank, or they get paid in cash. They put their earnings in a sack and they take it back to Mexico with them. I know. I’ve seen them do it.

In the great state of California it is illegal to report an illegal alien. It’s getting almost as bad in Texas. Texas has grown to depend on migrant labor. That’s not the problem. Hell, the ranches I used to work on actually had ‘wet shacks’ on them. The illegals would cross, and if the shack was empty, they would stay in it and work on the ranch until it was time for them to go back home. It was a great relationship for both the rancher and the migrant. The problem started with the drug smugglers, and when the government felt compelled to offer illegals the same rights as citizens.

It may sound harsh, but for lack of a better phrase - the illegals used to know their place. Now they think they are entitled to handouts. And that has changed everything.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Hell, the ranches I used to work on actually had ‘wet shacks’ on them. The illegals would cross, and if the shack was empty, they would stay in it and work on the ranch until it was time for them to go back home. It was a great relationship for both the rancher and the migrant.
[/quote]

I’d forgotten about the wet shacks. I used to work a feed lot, and every couple of months we’d drive the trucks out to the wet shacks to pick the guys up for work, only to find it empty. 20 or 30 immigrants had just up and disappeared during the night. I always wondered if they had heard some rumor La Migra was coming, if they had gone home, or if they had a better offer somewhere else.

Yup, loads of crap running around here.

First of all job churning is not just employers firing people left and right. It has become more popular for people to leave jobs for better jobs. Also businesses go out of business. Churning is just the word that makes it sound bad.

Also why are we supposed to hate the Chinese, telling them they cannot have our jobs, but it is ok for the Mexicans? If you are so worried about jobs being outsourced, why not complain about illegal immigrants.

Oh wait, they do jobs the Americans are unwilling to do aren’t they? But there are a lot of Americans, and Canadians who want to make those tiny little flag pins, aren’t there?

You know why a lot of jobs are going to China? Because they have finally discovered capitalism. Guess what. If you look in your computer, it probably has some parts that say made in Taiwan. You know what? If it says that, it most likely was actually made in China. The Taiwanese company that is making these parts, (I cannot remember what parts) Taiwan is outsourcing to China.

First thing people need to realize is that it is a global economy. That means the country borders are mattering less and less. Either we are a player or we are not. We have a hell of a lot more to lose then gain.

Second you need to realize that the government is not yo daddy. Or your sugar daddy. You are a product. You just do not realize that. And as a product, you need to be as marketable as you can. Also you need to be flexible. Most people are not working in the field they went to college for. But just having a college degree immediately makes you more valuable to a company, just because you have proven you know how to follow through.

I walk around and see signs all over the place for jobs, so there are jobs out there. Oh, wait they are all low paying jobs, like making little flag pins.

Now before everyone complains that we should be providing more jobs to people too ignorant to know how to get a job, (that is what you are saying isn?t it?) you need to think about the people I know. Magicians. There are no jobs for magicians in the paper. It is rare for a person to think of hiring a magician. The people I know have to go out and actually create those jobs.

Read that again. They create their jobs.

One person who is just a hobbyist is working as an air conditioner repairman. It is his business, so he created his job. And guess what, his job is not going to be outsourced. (And damn he has a nice house. Then again you should see the price of houses in Lincoln.)

Many people are under the false assumption that trade is how we sell stuff. No, we trade to get stuff.

Here is a benefit of trade too few people know about. Two countries might be capable of producing 2 different products each needs. But each might be able to produce one of those better and cheaper then the other. So if each focused on the one item, they could end up with more for less. And that benefits everyone.

Finally if you want to argue against outsourcing, tell me how many jobs were outsourced in America over the last 10 years, and then tell me how many jobs were insourced. You cannot argue against outsourcing without taking insourcing into account.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
I love the way you know all the possibilities - but I think you might have missed one.

My credit rating is abysmal. If I were to try and get a home loan, I would be laughed out of the loan officer’s cubicle. It’s not that I have bad credit. I have no real credit history except for a student loan. I pay cash for everything. My house is financed on a 10 year note by a local farmer who realized he could get a better interest rate from me than he could from a CD. My car is financed by the small local bank who doesn’t report to the credit bureaus. My building is financed at the same bank. I have no credit cards. I don’t deal with a big mega-bank, most of my finanial dealings fly under the radar of the all important credit rating.

Before you dismiss my situation as unique -

I have over 300 clients. 85% of them are farmers. Out of the 250 farmers that I deal with, there are maybe 5 or 6 that own a credit card. They own their house. They own their land. The loans they take out are through the FSA office, and they are usually about 2 years behind on them. But that’s not a function of the “only 2 possible explanations” - it’s drought, hail, rain, high fuel costs, low commodity prices, things like that.

I’m not about to speak for the rest of my great state, but from where I’m sitting there is more that “2 possibilities” for low credit scores.

What is California’s excuse?[/quote]

Yours is an outdated misconception. The credit score system was changed in 2004. Read this article, published back in the Summer of 2004:

All bureaus now use this system. It yeilds an exact 700 for someone with no credit history.

Did you actually order a credit report and find your credit score? You can get one of those for free now (one per year), so you might want to do it. You’ll be surprised.

Having no credit history – like you – indeed makes getting a loan hard. However, if you paid all your bills on your student loan, your Credit SCORE is actually probably in the 700’s.

I was talking specifically about credit SCORES, and, if you read around a little bit, you’ll understand that the only way to justify a, say, 655 is to actually have credit history but one of not paying your bills.

California has no excuse – but it’s LA’s fault, not SF’s. LA is a shithole these days, and because it makes for the majority of Cali’s population, it brings the whole Credit Score average of the State down. If you look at it by city, though, you’ll find that SF – the city of the homeless, in your own words – like all the liberal strongholds of this country has one of the highest:

The above shows that it is LA – not SF – that bring’s Cali’s credit score down.

I’ll also quote part of the article for your enjoyment:

"
Residents of the Lone Star State rated the lowest – Houston residents have an average score of 655 and residents of neighboring Dallas scored slightly lower, with an average of 653.
"

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Employment-at-will. It’s not pretty, but it is the right of the employer to hire and fire at will. Unless there was discrimination involved. I have the right to the the same thing in my office. The thing that sticks in the craw of the anti-business left is, there’s really not much you can do about it. As evidenced by Ca.'s punitive treatment of business - a business can either shutdown, or move out of your state.

There was nothing mentioned about your anti-business laws wrt the homeless. The Bay Area’s homeless problem is self-inflicted. Paying the homeless. Requiring business owners to tolerate panhandlers, and vagrants clogging their storefronts, etc. [/quote]

[quote]The Mage wrote:
Second you need to realize that the government is not yo daddy. Or your sugar daddy. You are a product. You just do not realize that. And as a product, you need to be as marketable as you can. Also you need to be flexible. Most people are not working in the field they went to college for. But just having a college degree immediately makes you more valuable to a company, just because you have proven you know how to follow through.

I walk around and see signs all over the place for jobs, so there are jobs out there. Oh, wait they are all low paying jobs, like making little flag pins.[/quote]

Rainjack, The Mage:

You know what? I respect your opinions stated above. I do, because they are right in line [sic] with your right-wing philosphy. You’re being honest, and I respect that.

I also don’t blame you for that opinion, because clearly you are two very successful people. You might consider yourselves lucky – or blessed, or whatever you want to call it.

However, I think your opinion of the homeless and/or unemployed – the way you feel that they essentially CHOOSE to be in that situation, since they could simply stop whinning and either find themselves a job or create one – is somewhat, well, simplistic.

I know what I’m going to tell you is part of the fundamental root of liberalism, and I won’t pretend to think that I’ll be able to convince you to become liberals. I just hope that it will, at least, make you think again about what you said.

Here it goes:

Many people are unemployed, and even homeless, but are so not because of being stupid, or lazy, or even not being willing to work at McDonald’s or create their own job. It’s because they tried, and they failed. Many of my long-term unemployed friends have applied for literally thousands of jobs: including retail, McD, Burger King, and even janitorial work. They didn’t get ANY. Some of them have never been called for an interview. Yes, not even for cleaning restrooms. Most of them have even tried to create their own jobs, but were unable to make enough money to pay their bills.

Why?

It’s a employer’s market over here in the Bay Area. There are many more unemployed people than jobs. Yes, there are vacant jobs, and if you walk into a Mall or open the newspaper you’ll see thousands of job ads. However, there are many more unemployed people than ads… and therefore employers make outrageous demands. On retail jobs, it’s experience: some demand 5 years or more of experience on the same type of retail. Does an ex-Computer Programmer whose job was outsourced to China or Customer Support person whose job went to India have retail experience? No.

Same applies to almost any blue or white collar job – requirements of experience of several years or more, making career changes all but impossible.

In regards to self-employment, well, yes, you can opt for that. Now you even have the “eBay Business” route that will get you going with little to no initial investment. There are thousands of people here who tried that. However, in the majority of cases, the margins are so low, and the competition so fierce, that rarely you’ll be able to make enough for a living: in most cases, it’s just used as a secondary source of income, rather than the primary.

Don’t get me wrong: you can be immensely successful by self-employing; most rich people are self-employed. However, the % of people that can make that their primary income source – like you two – is small.

As to the janitorial jobs, and even most McJobs, they almost invariably they go to illegal immigrants. Why? They’re willing to work for peanuts. And before you suggest that California reduces the minimum wage, well, people have thought about that and made an economical analysis, and the results would be even worse than the problems we have now with unemployment. I can elaborate on that if you wish.

So, you can argue that the problem is illegal immigrants. I’ll agree. It is. And I’m all for the INS going after all of them and sticking them in JAIL. For life, so that they just don’t go back. They deserve it. It’s appalling that these people think that they can just ignore the immigration law, come into this country with no permission from the Governemnt, share somebody’s SS#s, and send most of their earnings back to their home countries. It should be a crime – they should be punished for it and taken from the job market. Forever.

If something needs to be changed in California Law, it’s that.

Now, back to my liberal point: it’s not the unemployed’s fault. It rarely is. Some of them are trying really hard and are willing to do anything legal. Things are not as simple as you make them out to be…

As a liberal, I believe it’s the Government’s job to solve this mess – to get tough on illegal immigrants, and to support the long-term unemployed by helping them perform a career change: sending them to college at the Government’s expense, offering them a Federal or State job at low income just to create experience for their resume, etc.

If you can’t agree with me, can you at least agree it makes sense on some level, and give it some thought?

Hey hspder

[quote]hspder wrote:

Rainjack, The Mage:

You know what? I respect your opinions stated above. I do, because they are right in line [sic] with your right-wing philosphy. You’re being honest, and I respect that. [/quote]

The truth is neither right wing nor left wing. It is also not conservative or liberal. People are a commodity, as hard as that is to believe. I am a commodity. As such I have to make myself as valuable to the market as I can. To do otherwise is foolish. Now I am not saying that we just ignore those who need help, and are truly willing to help themselves if they can, but we cannot be foolish, otherwise the government will end up broke, and then cannot help anyone.

Also if we do not compete in the world, we lose. As simple as that. That is a big reason socialism and communism have failed. It is nice to care about people, but people have to care about themselves.

Uh yeah, right. We have medical bills up the wazoo due to my wife?s connective tissue disorder. After thousands of dollars spent, they at first could not identify the problem. Over the years this has seriously slowed me down as far as becoming a truly successful magician, (and comedian). I cannot take too many risks dealing with these bills.

But I am not complaining. I am on a very tight budget, and the bills are being dealt with. We have made great strides, and after everything we have gone through, the fact that we are not only standing, but I still have a positive attitude. I have no doubt of at least a limited future success, and of financial success.

So forgive me if I don?t care for anyone else whining about their problems, especially when I know some of these people. You cannot believe how many complain that they are getting the short end of the stick, when they have new or fairly new cars. And go out to the bars every single Friday night.

It?s like listening to fat people whining about having a slow metabolism being the reason they are fat, while eating doughnuts.

[quote]However, I think your opinion of the homeless and/or unemployed – the way you feel that they essentially CHOOSE to be in that situation, since they could simply stop whinning and either find themselves a job or create one – is somewhat, well, simplistic.

I know what I’m going to tell you is part of the fundamental root of liberalism, and I won’t pretend to think that I’ll be able to convince you to become liberals. I just hope that it will, at least, make you think again about what you said.

Here it goes:

Many people are unemployed, and even homeless, but are so not because of being stupid, or lazy, or even not being willing to work at McDonald’s or create their own job. It’s because they tried, and they failed. Many of my long-term unemployed friends have applied for literally thousands of jobs: including retail, McD, Burger King, and even janitorial work. They didn’t get ANY. Some of them have never been called for an interview. Yes, not even for cleaning restrooms. Most of them have even tried to create their own jobs, but were unable to make enough money to pay their bills.

Why?

It’s a employer’s market over here in the Bay Area. There are many more unemployed people than jobs. Yes, there are vacant jobs, and if you walk into a Mall or open the newspaper you’ll see thousands of job ads. However, there are many more unemployed people than ads… and therefore employers make outrageous demands. On retail jobs, it’s experience: some demand 5 years or more of experience on the same type of retail. Does an ex-Computer Programmer whose job was outsourced to China or Customer Support person whose job went to India have retail experience? No.

Same applies to almost any blue or white collar job – requirements of experience of several years or more, making career changes all but impossible.

In regards to self-employment, well, yes, you can opt for that. Now you even have the “eBay Business” route that will get you going with little to no initial investment. There are thousands of people here who tried that. However, in the majority of cases, the margins are so low, and the competition so fierce, that rarely you’ll be able to make enough for a living: in most cases, it’s just used as a secondary source of income, rather than the primary.

Don’t get me wrong: you can be immensely successful by self-employing; most rich people are self-employed. However, the % of people that can make that their primary income source – like you two – is small.

As to the janitorial jobs, and even most McJobs, they almost invariably they go to illegal immigrants. Why? They’re willing to work for peanuts. And before you suggest that California reduces the minimum wage, well, people have thought about that and made an economical analysis, and the results would be even worse than the problems we have now with unemployment. I can elaborate on that if you wish. [/quote]

I never said lower minimum wage. But sometimes if you cannot find a job in your area, move. If the market is not coming to you, you need to go to the market.

But job hunting has to be a full time job. Giving up is the worst thing to do. And they have to open their focus. I know what it is like to lose a job, and have to search. I have also seen people get negative and not actually try for jobs. I know of a person a few years back who sued a business because they would not hire him after countless applications. But the reason they did not hire him was because he kept coming in smelling like alcohol.

There is more to getting a job then just filling in all the blanks. And some people unfortunately expect to be given a job. And if they are not given a job, it must be the system. Nobody ever thinks it might just be them.

The same for starting a business. Yes, many businesses only generate part of a person?s income. But why does it need to generate all of it? The guy who wrote Guerilla Marketing wrote a book where he talked about how it is easier to create not just one business, but a few businesses. Each might not bring in enough money to live on by itself, but combined, it can be substantial.

Know somebody who needs money? Tell them to start a lawn mowing business. I know two people who run this type of business, and they both say they have to turn away business.

As far as jobs, there is a big shortage in the trucking industry. Last I knew it took 6 weeks at a local college to become a truck driver.

How many job applications did these people put out a week anyway? 25 a day, or just enough to get their unemployment benefits? And no this is not sarcasm. I know people who do this. (I also know, or at least knew, people who held jobs long enough to get these benefits, and suddenly lose their job, intentionally.)

[quote]So, you can argue that the problem is illegal immigrants. I’ll agree. It is. And I’m all for the INS going after all of them and sticking them in JAIL. For life, so that they just don’t go back. They deserve it. It’s appalling that these people think that they can just ignore the immigration law, come into this country with no permission from the Governemnt, share somebody’s SS#s, and send most of their earnings back to their home countries. It should be a crime – they should be punished for it and taken from the job market. Forever.

If something needs to be changed in California Law, it’s that. [/quote]

Wow, that’s harsh. I understand what these people are trying to do. And it makes sense that they look at America and see such prosperity, while they have such a harsh life. The problems in Mexico is a whole other issue. The Mexican government is doing little to change things. They actually put out pamphlets on how to sneak into America, while maintaining a strong border to the south to keep out the illegals who are trying to get into their country. What hypocrisy. (Of the Mexican government.)

[quote]Now, back to my liberal point: it’s not the unemployed’s fault. It rarely is. Some of them are trying really hard and are willing to do anything legal. Things are not as simple as you make them out to be…

As a liberal, I believe it’s the Government’s job to solve this mess – to get tough on illegal immigrants, and to support the long-term unemployed by helping them perform a career change: sending them to college at the Government’s expense, offering them a Federal or State job at low income just to create experience for their resume, etc.

If you can’t agree with me, can you at least agree it makes sense on some level, and give it some thought?
[/quote]

I have no problem with the government helping people. I do have a problem with the government doing it for the people.

Also one of the biggest problems we have is our educational system. Look at all the information we have just on this website about diet and exercise. Is this being taught in high school? No. And more importantly what about basic economics? How come people are graduating without understanding how to balance a checkbook?

There should be an overhaul of the system. I think geometry is important, but I actually think it is more important to know how to do a proper budget. I think there are classes where some of this is taught, but as a math problem, not as a life skill.

Here is the ultimate secret for life. Life’s problems are not out there, but in here. Meaning the successful people don’t blame others, or the system. They look at themselves for solutions.

There is a big reason for this. What is out there that you can change? Now what is there about you that you can change? You have a lot more control over yourself then the rest of the world.

As much as I bitch about the worlds problems, I have to live in it, and I know that. So I have to work on myself first, and make me the best I can be to deal with the world. Otherwise I end up being like the guy suing McDonalds because it made him fat.

Now forgive me but again I saw nothing about insourcing compared to outsourcing data.

I’ll give you a hint. Insourcing grew at 7.8% a year over the past 15 years, while outsourcing grew by 3.8%.

And I do respect your opinions. I believe you want to help people, and that is a good thing. I simply believe that my ideas will work better, and are more supported by historical data.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
The truth is neither right wing nor left wing. It is also not conservative or liberal.[/quote]

Sure. But how are you defining truth in this context? Is Truth the BEST solution for the social problems?

The problem is Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle applies here.

Without the benefit of omniscience and omnipotence, you’ll never know what is the Truth. We can only try one, and see what happens. If it fails, try another one – but the problem is that due to the initial attempt, even if the second attempt yeilds better results maybe it wouldn’t have if we hadn’t tried the first one – or the opposite: maybe it would yield better results without the first…

Furthermore, we would have to keep trying other ideas, or combinations of the first and second attempt, because the fact that we found a “best” doesn’t mean we found the “truth”.

Our political philosophies are essentially faith in a possible truth – one truth that will never be exactly known.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
People are a commodity, as hard as that is to believe. I am a commodity. As such I have to make myself as valuable to the market as I can. To do otherwise is foolish.[/quote]

I’m not arguing that. It’s a very “cold” assessment, but it is true, without doubt, since it’s part of Capitalism. And this is a Capitalist country.

However, my point is that you cannot basically expect that everybody likes that and is even able to market themselves. Many people have beliefs that go against it or make it harder. For example, I know many people that simply will refuse to use certain marketing techniques because they feel that they are dishonest.

Furthermore, many people lie in their resumes, and in their job interviews. And get hired based on lies, that will maybe never be discovered. So people who refuse to lie are generally punished by the marketplace.

Yes, it’s basically product marketing: companies that are willing to say anything to sell their product will invariably be more successful than honest companies that stick to scientifically proven facts.

So why shouldn’t the Government help people that the only problem that they have is that they’re “too honest”?

[quote]The Mage wrote:
Now I am not saying that we just ignore those who need help, and are truly willing to help themselves if they can, but we cannot be foolish, otherwise the government will end up broke, and then cannot help anyone.[/quote]

I understand why you think that – basically because the US has been more sucessful than Europe. But Europe’s root cause is not being left-wing, it’s the fact that they spend too much time discussing things instead of actually doing something about their problems.

But we’ll agree to disagree on what you said, OK? If we started discussing it, it would be like a Christian discussing with a Jew about the validity of the New Testament… It’s would be a discussion based on fundamental beliefs that rarely goes anywhere.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
Also if we do not compete in the world, we lose. As simple as that.[/quote]

Agreed…

[quote]The Mage wrote:
That is a big reason socialism and communism have failed. It is nice to care about people, but people have to care about themselves.[/quote]

… but no so fast.

The reasons communism has failed are not so simple. The fundamental problem was the fact that people need to think they’re free – to have at least the illusion of being somewhat in control of their lives. If they don’t have that, they become angry and depressed, and productivity goes downhill.

The other thing that lowered productivity is that people like to accumulate wealth, and giving them hope of become rich is a powerful “carrot”.

That had many implications besides low productivity – including, but not limited to, rampant corruption.

So, in essence, it’s not that the government was doing too much for people, it was that the government was not giving people what they wanted.

Now, in Western Europe, Social-Democracy (Socialism with Freedom) has actually been pretty successful, considering the limitations imposed by centuries of petty bickering between nations, different languages and cultures, and the absence of any useful natural resources.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
Uh yeah, right. We have medical bills up the wazoo due to my wife?s connective tissue disorder. After thousands of dollars spent, they at first could not identify the problem. Over the years this has seriously slowed me down as far as becoming a truly successful magician, (and comedian). I cannot take too many risks dealing with these bills.[/quote]

I’m sorry for that. Please don’t take this the wrong way, but it does surprise me that, even in spite of that problem, you don’t see value in an European system, where the Government would have taken care of your wife, and paid all her bills (that’s what happens there in situations like yours – and it isn’t horribly expensive for the Government because Health costs are so much lower).

[quote]The Mage wrote:
So forgive me if I don?t care for anyone else whining about their problems, especially when I know some of these people. You cannot believe how many complain that they are getting the short end of the stick, when they have new or fairly new cars. And go out to the bars every single Friday night.[/quote]

I perfectly understand that in your situation you find those attitudes as borderline insulting. And I’d be the first one to tell those people to stop whinning and get off their butts.

So please understand that when I say that the Government should help people, I mean some people, under specific conditions, and with strings attached. It’s not that hard to create a help system where people that are simply beyond help are weed out.

But you have to at least TRY, give them an opportunity! Because there many – not all, but many – that are indeed victims of injustices, not just lazy weiners [sic]. :slight_smile:

[quote]The Mage wrote:
It?s like listening to fat people whining about having a slow metabolism being the reason they are fat, while eating doughnuts. [/quote]

I agree – and if you heard how much of a hard time I give those people when I bump into them, you’d understand how much I agree with you.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
I never said lower minimum wage. But sometimes if you cannot find a job in your area, move. If the market is not coming to you, you need to go to the market.[/quote]

It’s not that simple… Many people are attached to the region they live in. What if you’re married and your spouse has a good job (but you still need that second income to get your 3 kids to college), hum? You can’t just force your spouse and your 3 kids to move too… and loose their job, their school, their friends…

[quote]The Mage wrote:
But job hunting has to be a full time job. Giving up is the worst thing to do. And they have to open their focus. I know what it is like to lose a job, and have to search. I have also seen people get negative and not actually try for jobs. I know of a person a few years back who sued a business because they would not hire him after countless applications. But the reason they did not hire him was because he kept coming in smelling like alcohol.[/quote]

I know there are such cases. But should the true victims – and there those, you know – have to pay for the stupidity of the people you describe?

[quote]The Mage wrote:
The same for starting a business. Yes, many businesses only generate part of a person?s income. But why does it need to generate all of it? The guy who wrote Guerilla Marketing wrote a book where he talked about how it is easier to create not just one business, but a few businesses. Each might not bring in enough money to live on by itself, but combined, it can be substantial.[/quote]

Believe it or not, there are some very intelligent and capable people that simply don’t the knack for business. That doesn’t mean their lesser people or dumber – it’s just the way they are wired, or they were brought up – or both.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
Know somebody who needs money? Tell them to start a lawn mowing business. I know two people who run this type of business, and they both say they have to turn away business.[/quote]

Well, yes, because not that many people want to mow lawns. Which is exactly why the people who are willing to are successful. But if I told all my friends to start such a business, since they all live in the same region, trust me, none of them would be able to live off it.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
As far as jobs, there is a big shortage in the trucking industry. Last I knew it took 6 weeks at a local college to become a truck driver. [/quote]

Almost invariably jobs that have a big shortage, they do so because they require something from people that they don’t want to give.

Trucking is actually a good example – the stepfather of one of my friends is a trucker, and, believe me, it’s not exactly a job for everyone. Especially if you have a family.

I understand where you’re going, though – your point is that there are plenty of jobs out there, it’s just that people are not willing to take them, and they should be willing to, rather than have the Government indulge them.

I get it. But I disagree that’s the best solution – even if indulging people seems like a bad idea, by basically saying that people should willing to take any job you’re making the same mistake that communists made, with the same consequence: low productiviy. If people are not happy in their jobs, they’ll screw up. And you can’t change people. You can’t force them to be happy doing something they don’t want to do.

So you’ll say: well, let them be unemployed then. It’s their problem. The thing is – it’s not. Unemployed people, even if they don’t have unemployment benefits, they are a problem to society, and they cost a lot of money, especially in a capitalist society, since they basically don’t help keeping the money moving.

If I had a whiteboard here, I’d show you some mathematical proof – based on Microeconomic and Macroenonomic equations – that a certain level of investment of the Government in educating the unemployed pays off fairly quickly, and yeilds better economic results than letting them be unemployed or forcing them to do jobs they don’t want to.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
Wow, that’s harsh. I understand what these people are trying to do. And it makes sense that they look at America and see such prosperity, while they have such a harsh life. The problems in Mexico is a whole other issue. The Mexican government is doing little to change things. They actually put out pamphlets on how to sneak into America, while maintaining a strong border to the south to keep out the illegals who are trying to get into their country. What hypocrisy. (Of the Mexican government.)[/quote]

Yes, my position is very harsh, maybe because I have to live surrounded by the consequences of illegal immigration every day.

I understand what these people are trying to do too. My problem is that we shouldn’t have to deal with other Government’s problems and mistakes. We have our own to worry about.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
I have no problem with the government helping people. I do have a problem with the government doing it for the people.[/quote]

I understand that.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
Also one of the biggest problems we have is our educational system. Look at all the information we have just on this website about diet and exercise. Is this being taught in high school? No. And more importantly what about basic economics? How come people are graduating without understanding how to balance a checkbook?[/quote]

Trust me, people are graduating without understanding much of anything. I have to deal with them every day… Even in “Elite Schools”, the ignorance of some grads is nothing short of mind-boggling.

The problem, however, is not the educational system. It’s the parents, who instead of educating their kids to sit down and study, let the TV educate them, and do nothing when they spend most of their time either find a way to get laid or sitting around in front of the TV, watching it or playing games.

Teachers and professors can do nothing about that, especially when a) it’s the parents who indirectly pay for our salaries and b) they will go ballistic if we even hint at the fact that their kids are essentially ignorant and unprepared for the “real world”.

So usually, we need for things to blow up – like people getting really high on CC debt – before they’re willing to come back and listen.

Hey hspedr.

[quote]hspder wrote:
Sure. But how are you defining truth in this context? Is Truth the BEST solution for the social problems?

The problem is Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle applies here.

Without the benefit of omniscience and omnipotence, you’ll never know what is the Truth. We can only try one, and see what happens. If it fails, try another one – but the problem is that due to the initial attempt, even if the second attempt yeilds better results maybe it wouldn’t have if we hadn’t tried the first one – or the opposite: maybe it would yield better results without the first…

Furthermore, we would have to keep trying other ideas, or combinations of the first and second attempt, because the fact that we found a “best” doesn’t mean we found the “truth”.

Our political philosophies are essentially faith in a possible truth – one truth that will never be exactly known.[/quote]

Ah yes, the truth. Sure we cannot ever truly know the truth, and everything we do know is just a representation of reality.

First I must say that the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle does not really apply to this discussion properly, as it has to deal with subatomic particles, specifically with the trouble of knowing both position and momentum of a particle.

Rather statistical probability and historical reference is needed. The test operate test exit flowchart does work, but look at history to find these working models. There is a reason America is the most successful. It also explains why we have our problems, and why they are not being fixed.

People might not like capitalism, but it works, and there is a big reason why that a lot of people just don’t get. It most closely matches nature. It is survival of the fittest. (And for the person who previously thought that this is somehow a bigoted statement, please understand I am talking about business, not people.) If a company cannot compete, it will not survive against the competition. A good example is the cable industry. They used to have a monopoly, my personal opinion of which sucked, then satellite television came in and suddenly they had to improve.

It wasn’t the government that gave me a billion channels of brain sapping crap, (plus all those science channels) but competition. Government regulations that kept the one monopoly didn’t help at all.

Socialism has an inherent weakness. All money is filtered through the government, and that means people who do not know you decide how you can spend your money. By all rights they can decide that tofu is the proper food source, and much better for you then meat, so must be consumed in meats place.

Sure an extreme example, but completely possible under a socialist state. If soy replaced all meat, protein production would rise dramatically, feeding the masses. The greater good for all.

Personally I would like to decide what is good for me. That means eating chicken, and for others it means living off of McDonald’s fries.

Ah, I refuse to use dishonest marketing techniques. The fact of the matter is they do not work in the long run. Many businesses have been destroyed by these practices, and it should not be assumed that they are a regular business practice.

This is too often a misconception about business, and capitalism, that you have to take advantage of others to prosper. But when you start looking at the most successful people, they are often the most honest. And their integrity is what their successful business is built on.

If you go around screwing people, the word gets out, then nobody wants to do business with you. Word of mouth is the most powerful marketing technique around.

Once again I will bring up Biotest. I have absolute trust in their products, and that is hard to get from me. Very hard. They built up their business on integrity.

Now you can look at supplements of the past. Is Hot Stuff still around? It sold well in the past, but I don’t see it anywhere today. Those NO2 supps are all the rage, and a complete con, but where will they be in 5 or 10 years?

These companies have to keep creating new crap to replace the old crap. And they have to market to kids because the more experience a person gets, the harder it is to fool.

Sure these companies are still out there, but they seem a little scared of Biotest. I have seen it. There is a reason for that.

The competition is going to eventually start taking some of these companies down. It might take a while, but it will happen.

To continue what you were saying:

[quote]Furthermore, many people lie in their resumes, and in their job interviews. And get hired based on lies, that will maybe never be discovered. So people who refuse to lie are generally punished by the marketplace.

Yes, it’s basically product marketing: companies that are willing to say anything to sell their product will invariably be more successful than honest companies that stick to scientifically proven facts.

So why shouldn’t the Government help people that the only problem that they have is that they’re “too honest”?[/quote]

See, the assumption that you benefit from lies and corruption. It might work in the short run, but not the long. How many people get away with lying on their resume? And if they do, how long before that little defect appears in the workplace?

A company that does not deal with these people will lose out.

Locally one car company has a very bad reputation. They have actually taken to the television, saying they had to get rid of some “bad apples”, and are asking for a second chance. Do you think they would be doing this if the lack of honesty was profitable? I don’t. The fact that they are going to this extreme shows they are failing as a business. Maybe they learned, but maybe not.

I see a company that if they had run it better, could have been a lot bigger then they are.

The secret to a successful business is to fill a need. You have to benefit people, otherwise you will not stay in business. And to fool an employer for long requires a special type of liar.

You never hear about the businesses not screwing people, but hear a lot about the ones that do. That means they got caught, and it is hard not to if you are screwing people. That is why they make the news.

I am sorry, but that is a function of bureaucracy, and bureaucracy is what governments do, and socialism naturally increases bureaucracy because it increases the power of governments.

You will see what happens to Europe over the next few decades. Either they will move to more capitalist ideas, or they will fail to compete as socialism takes hold.

Actually no. This is not a discussion about theology, which cannot be scientifically discussed. Economics, which is a social science, can. It is not about beliefs, but about what works and what does not.

Don’t forget that in the USSR, one of the most successful parts of their system was the Black Market. Even in the USSR they could not get away from capitalism. It made their system more bearable.

But you are right that people need a decent amount of freedom, and socialism is naturally anti freedom just by it’s very nature.

Your next statement is proof that even you know that capitalism works, and for a big reason:

Yes, a very powerful carrot. That is the key. Positive and negative reinforcement of behavior. Capitalism is just that.

Again another problem with communism. If you have a problem with a company’s corruption, you can always go somewhere else. But if you have a problem with the governments corruption, where do you go? If your medical care is corrupt, it might be required by law that you accept such corruption.

[quote] So please understand that when I say that the Government should help people, I mean some people, under specific conditions, and with strings attached. It’s not that hard to create a help system where people that are simply beyond help are weed out.

But you have to at least TRY, give them an opportunity! Because there many – not all, but many – that are indeed victims of injustices, not just lazy weiners [sic]. :slight_smile: [/quote]

Actually this is something is totally agree with. But the system is a blanket system. It is assumed that if a person is having problems, then it is not their fault.

Sure, many times it isn’t, but most often it is. But then most people will deal with these problems. Most people who go on welfare are there only temporarily. But there is a whole host of people who have learned to work the system.

What I think you might be misunderstanding about what I am saying is something like this. If I were to say there are a lot more poor people on drugs, you might think I mean that to be poor means you are more likely to do drugs, but I actually mean the opposite that if you do drugs, you are more likely to be poor.

Definitely help people. But be careful of giving instead of helping.

Would you be opposed to a system that gave anybody who asked the exact same amount of money they would have gotten from welfare as long as they were willing to take a government job that would equal the pay they would have gotten? Any able bodied person could put in maybe 15 or so hours a week depending.

Fewer question asked, a benefit to everybody, and the need to prevent fraud is heavily reduced. A whole host of work could be offered so people could choose what they would best prefer to do.

Also benefits would only be reduced if a person worked less. So if a person somehow got a $50,000 a year job, they could still work for that 15 if they really wanted to in addition to their job, but I don’t see why. (I did no math to come up with that 15.)

Following in reference to moving:

Sometimes you have to get over that attachment. If the wife works, then maybe the husband needs to live with a lower paying job, or work on someway to move where both parties are happy.

A lot of people have to make decisions like this. It is unfortunate, but those are the cards these people are dealt. You have to play the game, just like you have to brush your teeth. If you don’t, and your teeth fall out, who do you blame? And still these people can get their teeth fixed, or get implants.

Following in reference to event of person not being hired because of a drinking problem.

Sorry but I don’t see how others have to pay because of this person. This person hurt his chances of getting a job, so in effect he makes it easier for the other people to get jobs, because they still needed to hire somebody.

And this is why we need to teach people better. I have seen some of the most dim bulbs run businesses. How much business intellect does it take to pick up dog poop? This is a profitable business. Anything that the person does not want to do can be “outsourced”.

There are some people who just cannot do their taxes. This is also a fact, but tell that to the IRS. That is why there are people who do that for you. Hey, another business. Some places teach people how to do taxes, and then put them places that they can do people’s taxes. Less business knowledge needed, and most of their work is actually done on a computer.

Reference to comment about mowing lawns:

Again you didn’t get my point. This is just one thing people can do. Clean houses. Do taxes, pick up poop, walk dogs, deliver the USA Today (I actually did this, surprisingly decent job, and no weekends or holidays.) Teach people to lose weight. Take wedding photos, or videotape the thing if you want. I know a DJ who tried to get me into the DJ business.

Yes, I am a person who will hate to mow lawns, which is why I never took these people up on their offer. I could be running a business with others mowing the lawns for me by now. Also the idea of being a DJ did not appeal to me just because I would hate some of the music.

What I am saying is that the possibilities are endless. Keep an open mind, and see where your interests take you.

You argued about trucking, but again there is another job that while not for everybody, still can work for a lot of people. My brother does this for a living. Again it is just one of a billion options.

[quote] I understand where you’re going, though – your point is that there are plenty of jobs out there, it’s just that people are not willing to take them, and they should be willing to, rather than have the Government indulge them.

I get it. But I disagree that’s the best solution – even if indulging people seems like a bad idea, by basically saying that people should willing to take any job you’re making the same mistake that communists made, with the same consequence: low productiviy. If people are not happy in their jobs, they’ll screw up. And you can’t change people. You can’t force them to be happy doing something they don’t want to do. [/quote]

Actually that is not what I am saying, at least not exactly. Sure temporarily they could and should take jobs they dislike, but that is even more motivation to get out of there and into something they do.

People should do what they like. I am not just saying that everybody should do these jobs, but you should not “poo poo” them all. There are a lot of people who do these jobs, and love them. They are not right for everybody, and not right for more for longer periods of time, but they are right for some, and some were right for me.

I am only pointing out options. Instead of looking at these options, you look for reasons for them not to work. That is the mistake, because for every option I have given, there are thousands more. It would be pointless to list them all because this post is already long enough, and I still would be incapable of coming up with them all.

No that is not what I am saying, but sometimes tough love works. And sometimes help is refused, if it involves work. I am not saying there should not be an unemployment benefits, nor that I don’t care about these people. I only say they should be able to eventually stand on their own feet. So a person cannot find their dream job. They can find their second best dream job, or third, or eventually work up to it. But when a person refuses to take a job washing dishes, and would rather be given me money, we have a problem.

Again I am all for education. I like the idea of getting more people educated. This is like a hand up instead of a hand out, and as such I approve. But how many people know that they are already approved for their college education at least partly paid for? How many people realize they are able to get a loan for college?

More then realize it. And in fact it is easier the poorer you are.

[quote] Trust me, people are graduating without understanding much of anything. I have to deal with them every day… Even in “Elite Schools”, the ignorance of some grads is nothing short of mind-boggling.

The problem, however, is not the educational system. It’s the parents, who instead of educating their kids to sit down and study, let the TV educate them, and do nothing when they spend most of their time either find a way to get laid or sitting around in front of the TV, watching it or playing games.

Teachers and professors can do nothing about that, especially when a) it’s the parents who indirectly pay for our salaries and b) they will go ballistic if we even hint at the fact that their kids are essentially ignorant and unprepared for the “real world”.

So usually, we need for things to blow up – like people getting really high on CC debt – before they’re willing to come back and listen. [/quote]

I get the impression you are a teacher. True?

Teachers tend to be more liberal then most, but interestingly are better savers then the average person according to The Millionaire Next Door.

Anyway you are right. We need a new paradigm. People need to think differently. Instead of giving up people need to look for solutions.

Also like I said the education system could and should be overhauled. Teach the children to learn in spite of their parents and television, and unfortunately teachers.

There are advanced learning techniques out there, and ways to make school more interesting, and not just a place to get kids to torture other kids, and prepare for a life of bullies and victims.

Back to the capitalism vs. socialism, actually it should be thought of as a scale with each being on the opposite ends. It is more like a continuum then two separate ideas. We need to find the proper balance that produces the best results, for the benefit of humanity. History and real logic can provide a good understanding of where to be. Blind politics cannot.

But again insourcing is not being discussed.